Possible John Burroughs visit summer 08

[John Burroughs]

One more thing James Easton can confirm this because he was in contact with me while I was deployed in Jan- April 2003......

[Deep Purple]

Just a couple of things, I dont think lie detector test are useful. In the Uk they are not used within the criminal justice system because of their considered unreliability. What ever evidence we gain for what happened must stand scrutiny.
Much the same goes for Hypnosis--- its unreliable and open to suggestion.
IanR's input into the debate is useful, even if we disgaree with it, because it exposes flaws in our arguments and he is skeptical---- a very good thing. The fact that IanR has been talking to JB just shows his dedication to the truth as well as ours.
The whole thing is a Rabbit Warren of intrigue and theories.
I'm not sure agressively challenging witnesses will solve this case. If you take a simple event like a road crash different people will see and remember different things , so imagine what the results would be like when faced with something totally unexplicable.
For me I beleive at present the US placed probably a mock of a stealth fighter in the forest, placed some spooky lights/ effects around to cover up the arrival of stealth--- a ufo story is wonderfull to cover up a black project. Secondly they allowed / enticed the SP to find it and may have carried out some mind control type experiment to see what happened.
They could then interogate the SP to see what they recalled/ how they reacted having controlled exactly what they saw. I also beleive some of the witnesses are probably still being paid to promote the myth as part of an overall ufo disinformation campaign, which can be adapted to cover sightings of black projects. My mind however is open and I may not be right and will willing chnage my views with evidence. The saying is the best disinformation is part truth

[IanR]

IanR's input into the debate is useful, even if we disgaree with it, because it exposes flaws in our arguments and he is skeptical---- a very good thing.

Thank you. I’m afraid I’m going to be skeptical again, and I hope you continue to appreciate the spirit in which it’s done.

The problem with any accident scenario, or any cover-up scenario, is that the local police were called out by the Bentwaters law enforcement desk on the night of the first sighting, because the events were on British soil. The instruction to call them was made by Lieutenant Buran, who was in charge at Central Security Control, and the call was made by airman Chris Armold (not "Arnold" as is sometimes written).

Hence we have two independent, qualified witnesses with extensive local knowledge who arrived at the spot not long after the original sightings were made.

The Suffolk police log tells us that the PCs searched the area but found nothing. The only lights they could see were from the object-that-I-am-not-allowed-to-mention. There is no evidence of them being affected by radiation, chemicals or energy beams.

Chris Armold, who put in the call, was sufficiently intrigued to go out to see for himself. John B will, I think, confirm that he and Armold went into the forest together. Armold, like the police, found nothing and saw only the lights from the object-that-I-am-not-allowed-to-mention. He did not suffer from radiation, chemical or other effects either.

I am not divulging privileged information here, for this has all been openly available on the net for years.

After daybreak, the police were called out again to see the supposed landing marks. Even in daylight there was no sign of any object at the site, just indentations. Again, none of the personnel involved suffered any effects from radiation, chemicals or energy beams.

If you have not yet seen it, you can access the Suffolk police report via this page:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4vp5
In particular, the last letter in the file, dated 28 July 1999, repays careful reading.

Ian

[redsocks]

As for John dealing with you Graham well I must say I am suprised arranging JB to come over and meet up with a confessed Rendlesham skeptic in IanR,what you looking for a witchunt?

I also cant understand why you would want to hang out with a known skeptic as you jump down most peoples throuts here at the slightest mention that you may not be telling the truth.I'll tell you John theres a lot of people here who dont think it actually John Burroughs posting here and I for one will not acknowledge anything until web cam proof is given,i'm not going to debate with just a name and have no future plans of doing so.

Since you have come on here nothing about the Rendlesham incident has changed and I dare say nothing will change.....you are loving all this but do you really think us brits are really that stupid to be strung along?

Cool it, Redsocks. Feel free to voice your opinion, but keep it nice.

I'll be watching this thread closely.

I'll tell you John theres a lot of people here who dont think it actually John Burroughs posting here

It is John Burroughs... I have no reason to think otherwise.

Hi Admin,

Ok point taken,I just cant understand why JB cant say all he knows,the hypnosis for example why would he want to hold back on that?maybe something for a rainy day eh. We are not going to get anywhere if information is held back.
Strange thing,my opinion about the Rendlesham incident has changed quite considerably sinced I watched an episode of the 70's tv show "Project UFO",its a US drama that investigates actual project bluebook UFO sightings that were carried out by the USAF , there is an episode there that very much mirrors a lot of the Rendlesham incident,date of transmission 1979.....
Just a side note does anybody know if any of the real project bluebook guys are still alive and involved in UFO sightings?

Redsocks

[redsocks]

I would like to ask John something.Halt says you were standing with him and you both observed the craft,he also says in he's statement that you and him witnessed the craft leave the ground,he then goes on to say that that the lights were witnessed.You have stated on this forum John that all you saw were lights and no craft,could you please clear that up for us.

Redsocks

[redsocks]

Redsocks I think you are getting the first and third night confused. JB was standing next to Jim Penniston on the first night. Penniston saw the craft but JB just saw lights.

The following is pure speculation:

It may be that JB saw the craft on a later occasion (possibly while on East Gate duty Sunday night 27th - while the C5 crew were in the woods) and was sworn to secrecy thus being unable to comment on the Penniston craft.

St.

Ok yeh this is confusing because Penniston was ok to mention a craft but John wasnt??on the first night Penniston said 80 "trained spotters" saw the craft leave the forest,but John says all he saw was lights. How could one guy be standing next to another and ones see's a craft and the other one doesent,i'm not going to beat about the bush here obviously one of them isnt telling the truth, think about it it would be hard for two people to decribe an object they proberly didnt see at all,hence the confusion.

Redsocks

[redsocks]

Message for John Burroughs.Can I ask you John why the USAF/US GOV want you to still go along with this story? If they were so bothered about secrecy why did they let you be interviewd for tv when you were still a serving airman? .Are you being used as a "smoke screen" for actual events at Rendlesham? I think you know more than what you will say hence the hypnosis denial.There must be some military involvment here,Charles Halt was the first serving airmen to put in an official report about a UFO since the blue book files closed in 1967,was he put up to that to cover what actually happened?. He seems to have had "control" even though he is retired,why would a retired officer have so much control over serving airmen?,youve agreed that Halt seems to run the show,is Halt the main man still working for the military/Gov?. I wonder if you could answer some of these questions? thanks.

Redsocks

[puddlepirate]

Having read the police reports provided by Ian R, considered what JB has said and in particular the fact that JB has not answered any of the direct questions put to him, plus the conflicting witness statements and also because even Jenny Randles has formed a different opinion, I have come to the conclusion that nothing happened and that the whole incident has evolved into a self-perpetuating myth.

Suffolk constabulary attended twice and saw nothing - no USAFE personnel in the forest, no roadblocks, no odd lights....nothing. All they saw were some ill defined, random scrapings on the forest floor.

I have stood at east gate at night, in late November. I have stood on Orford jetty at night. I have even sailed past Orfordness at night in a warship. Orfordness light cannot be seen from east gate and even when viewed from the jetty it is a small speck of light in the distance. At sea it is still quite small. The red light can only be seen if close inshore. It is lower than the white light so even if part of the white light can be seen from the edge of the forest, the red cannot. However, the police claim that under certain weather conditions the beam sweeps through the forest......but to be honest, I'd have to see that to believe it. It doesn't even sweep across the jetty! Even in Ian R's video it is a small, out of focus light blinking in the distance. I suspect that the Cosmos re-entry and the meteor shower were probably the cause of any odd lights seen in the sky.

So for me, that's it. The end of the road. A non-event. A story that over time and with constant retelling, has simply got out of hand.

[IanR]

Orfordness light cannot be seen from east gate

Which is, of course, why it would come as a surprise to anyone who saw it from the eastern edge of the forest. And few people went that far into the forest at night.

the police claim that under certain weather conditions the beam sweeps through the forest......but to be honest, I'd have to see that to believe it. It doesn't even sweep across the jetty!

Two reasons you wouldn't see much of it from the jetty. One, the beam is deliberately shielded from the town of Orford (no one wants to be kept awake at night by a flashing light). And, secondly, on the quayside you are at sea level whereas the light is at 28 m altitude. However, at the forest edge you are close to the 20-m contour line which puts you much closer to the height of the light.

Don't be too hard on JB for not answering some of the posts here. The results of his hypnosis session are surely private, and frankly I think that some of the questioning has been at best insensitive and at worst intrusive and impertinent.

Ian

[AdrianF]

I have stood at east gate at night, in late November. I have stood on Orford jetty at night. I have even sailed past Orfordness at night in a warship. Orfordness light cannot be seen from east gate and even when viewed from the jetty it is a small speck of light in the distance. At sea it is still quite small. The red light can only be seen if close inshore. It is lower than the white light so even if part of the white light can be seen from the edge of the forest, the red cannot. However, the police claim that under certain weather conditions the beam sweeps through the forest......but to be honest, I'd have to see that to believe it. It doesn't even sweep across the jetty! Even in Ian R's video it is a small, out of focus light blinking in the distance. I suspect that the Cosmos re-entry and the meteor shower were probably the cause of any odd lights seen in the sky.

Puddlepirate, I've seen the lighthouse make a spectacular show on one night, this was about eight years ago in early September and my first night actually camping there. The best way to describe what I saw, is the beam sweep being particularly vivid and scattering through the branches. It took me a few nervous minutes before I realised what it was! I've spent many nights since then camping in the forest but never seen this display again, though a couple of times I've seen the beam sweeping the treetops. I would really like to capture this on film, if I'm lucky enough to see it again.

Adrian

[AdrianF]

Just to add the light show I witnessed was only made up of white light. I saw this first from the small tent field then I walked out onto the road, about 100 yards from the East Gate road entrance, before realising what I was watching.

Adrian
[/quote]

[puddlepirate]

Good evening gentlemen...

I perhaps should qualify my last post. I stand by my conviction that nothing happened in the forest. Also, if the weather conditions were such that the light from the Orfordness lighthouse was diffused or somehow refracted or whatever then that might account for some strange sightings (but wasn't it a clear night, no cloud cover, no mist, normal temp for Dec?). Also, whatever we might think of the UK police today, in 1980 they were not as they are now. Therefore, it they visited the forest twice and reported that they saw nothing, then there was nothing to see.

However, that said it doesn't mean that nothing at all happened at the twin bases. There might well have been an event serious enough to warrant a cover story of some kind. Thus my personal belief is that to continue to focus on the forest is a mistake. One contributor made a comment some while back that we should look closer to home....that suggests a couple of things (a) it was not alien technology (b) it might have been Brit and (c) whatever happened was contained within the bases themselves.

There are incidents, not necessarily with weapons but often with the weapons platforms that could have implications for the weapons, that occur far more frequently than is realised and if if such incidents became public knowledge there would be an outcry. That nothing happened in the forest I have no doubt but that something might have happened within the confines of the twin bases is another matter entirely.

This is not meant to imply there were strange tests involving even stranger experimental or stealth technology going on. I doubt that was the case. The suggestion is that - if true - then whatever it was, was far more straightforward than that. It might hinge on the fact that (I believe) in 1980 the US was not supposed to be holding any nuclear weapons of any kind on UK soil. I'll have to do a bit of research but I seem to recall denials being made in the House over this very issue.

[puddlepirate]

1. Was the 67th ARRS or any other personnel at the twin bases involved with Cruise missiles in any way whatsoever?

2. Were any of the Cruise missiles stored at RAF Molesworth, Cambs or at Greenham Common moved up to Bentwaters during the latter part of 1980 (in response to the developing crisis on the Polish border)?

3. Did the integrated circuit glitch that caused computers connected to NORAD to give an erroneous warning of an imminent Soviet missile attack, affect any NORAD computers at Bentwaters

4. Were any areas of Rendlesham forest designated as Cruise missile launch sites (given the forest would provide ideal cover from the prying eyes of Soviet spy satellites?)

Sources:

Cruise missiles stored in UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 514879.stm
Computer fault: http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm
Polish crisis: http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

Discuss...

[puddlepirate]

Correction to my last. This is the source for the Polish crisis:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... cle11.html
The Crisis in Poland, 1980-81

[ghaynes]

1. Was the 67th ARRS or any other personnel at the twin bases involved with Cruise missiles in any way whatsoever?

2. Were any of the Cruise missiles stored at RAF Molesworth, Cambs or at Greenham Common moved up to Bentwaters during the latter part of 1980 (in response to the developing crisis on the Polish border)?

3. Did the integrated circuit glitch that caused computers connected to NORAD to give an erroneous warning of an imminent Soviet missile attack, affect any NORAD computers at Bentwaters

4. Were any areas of Rendlesham forest designated as Cruise missile launch sites (given the forest would provide ideal cover from the prying eyes of Soviet spy satellites?)

Sources:

Cruise missiles stored in UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 514879.stm
Computer fault: http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm
Polish crisis: http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

Discuss...

Hi Puddlepirate,
1. No
2. My understanding is that they were silo launched missiles not mobile ones? Incidently there were no cruise missiles at Molesworth in 1980. I was stationed there in 1985 and the silos/storage facilities were still being built. Interesting that the BBC article states that they wouldn't be launched from their respective bases though! How can they say that!! If the Soviets launched a missile attack you would only have time to push the button and retaliate. You wouldn't worry about moving them to another location before launching. Hence my thoughts that they were actually silo-launched weapons.
3. The Command Post received a signal warning of an imminent attack and the base was put on readiness. One of the personnel in the Command Post at the time wrote an article on the incident for our Society newsletter a while back. He states that the incident occurred during a weekend in 1978 (when the 81st TFW were still flying F-4s...just). Must be a different incident though as the article states it was June 1980.
4. No. See my answer to 2. Wouldn't have thought a lorry c/w missile launcher would be able to get through the forest to the field at Capel Green? If that is what you are implying?

Graham

[redsocks]

After looking into the Rendlesham incident for some time now I agree with some of the posts that what we are dealing with here is indeed an elaborate hoax.There is no evidence to say anything usual happened at Rendlesham just some witnesses that it has to been said have not been very responsive(JB could you answer my last post please) all they are responsible for is a story which has changed somewhat throuout the years with a catalogue of errors compered to what they previously stated.I dont think it ends here as I intend to put something together for the local press explaining the whole story and why possibly the airmen would do this,dont want to put words into your mouth again AdrianF but a logical film or prehaps a book would seal this deal once and for all,there is enough information now to bury this.

Redsocks .. once a believer but with time following the same route as others who have looked hard into this and become a skeptic.........

[AdrianF]

I dont think it ends here as I intend to put something together for the local press explaining the whole story and why possibly the airmen would do this,dont want to put words into your mouth again AdrianF but a logical film or prehaps a book would seal this deal once and for all,there is enough information now to bury this.

Redsocks, as you are well aware there has been a large amount of good work already done on this case, it's just that the more sensational stuff seems to steal the limelight. I hope that your article for the local papers is a fair one.
Don't worry about putting words in my mouth as burying this ( if that's possible ) is the last of my intentions.

Adrian

[Observer]

Hi all

It might be polite to run any idea of going to the media past Admin first.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

Thanks Graham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Lau ... se_Missile

Cruise could be launched from a mobile, truck mounted launcher and given the crisis in Poland I though they might have been moved into position as soon as a threat became known, just in case. Also, to launch from somewhere like Greeham Common or Molesworth would have meant the missiles overflying heavily populated areas of the UK - very risky. Much more sensible to move them to bases on the coast, closest to the target area - i.e. Bentwaters/Woodbridge. Also, whilst it wasn't until mid 1980 that Francis Pym stated in the House that Cruise would be sited in the UK, it is very likely they were here long before that, simply because that is the nature of defence. Why let the enemy know what you are up to? Only when the enemy already knows is there any need to make a public announcement...

Given that Cruise could be fired from a mobile launcher and given the crisis in Poland might have been sufficient reason to move them up to a launch site, it seems feasible that the forest would provide excellent cover. They wouldn't need to move up as far as Capel Green, just in the forest would do. This was a tactic employed by the British Army on the Rhine when using tanks. The tanks would move to forward positions and hide up in German forests. The Polish crisis came to a peak in Dec 1980 but receeded soon afterwards so the launchers might only have been in position for a couple of days before being quietly withdrawn and the missiles returned to Molesworth. Much harder to hit mobile launchers than silo sites.

And Bentwaters already had the WSA...

All pure conjecture of course.

[puddlepirate]

Hi JB....

Just re-read your posts. You must have served over 26years in total. That is impressive. What rank did you retire with?